Judge sets date to review Safavian, Abramoff e-mails

Government lawyers have produced a flood of e-mail communications between indicted former General Services Administration chief of staff David Safavian and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, but it has yet to be decided whether those e-mails will be admissible as evidence in Safavian's upcoming trial.

Government lawyers last week released 262 pages of e-mail messages, mostly between Abramoff and Safavian, though the documents also included messages to colleagues and e-mails from Abramoff to his wife and some business associates.

Barbara "Biz" Van Gelder, Safavian's lawyer, said the government's introduction of the e-mails was an unusual measure taken to influence public opinion against her client, and she objected Friday to a planned government filing of additional messages. In a motion, she argued that a January protective order that allows the prosecution, but not the defense, to publicly file information without prior approval amounts to a "one-way street" in favor of the government's case.

In a Friday order, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman wrote, "In view of the nature of the charges in this case, the media attention and defense counsel's concerns about prejudicial pretrial publicity, the court has determined that it will administer a written questionnaire" during a jury selection process that could be extended up to three days, if necessary.

Friedman also said the court would hear oral arguments on the admissibility of the e-mails, as well as certain other questions, on May 5.

The e-mails in question, released by Justice Department lawyers on April 14 in a court motion, seem to display a blending of business and personal concerns, with Abramoff apparently seeking the GSA official's advice and assistance regarding particular properties as they exchanged invitations to meals, golf outings and other social events.

A January 2003 message from Abramoff to Safavian's personal e-mail account apparently sought information on upcoming business. The message read, "We are moving forward fast … we need to involve in the company those with relevant skill sets and government experience. Consequently, my guys are asking me to find out the first four or five contracts we might be competing for. Can you get me that info really fast? Thanks David."

The e-mail closed with an invitation: "Rb this week?" From other messages, it appeared that the two had played racquetball together the week before.

As with many of the messages included in the filing, this apparent communication from Abramoff to Safavian's personal account was paired with another to his work account, in this case dated two days later, that echoed only the personal portions of the note: "Sent you an e-mail to your home account. Rb this week?"

Government lawyers wrote that the e-mails would serve to establish that Abramoff was doing business with GSA at a time when Safavian claimed he was not. Safavian's indictment last October included charges of making false statements about his relationship with the lobbyist.

The messages also will establish that Safavian was fully aware of this work and had personally provided assistance to the lobbyist, according to the government's filing.

"It's at the judge's discretion whether the documents would be admissible," said Bryan Sierra, a Justice Department spokesman, who commented before Friday's announcement of a date for oral arguments on the subject.

Van Gelder said standard practice in submitting potential evidence for admissibility would be to provide the judge with a list of pieces of evidence, rather than the evidence itself. "Does that affect our ability to get an impartial jury? I don't know," she said.

To some in the procurement community, Safavian's trial is another blow against an already embattled group. "Whether or not it's fair or indicative, after the [Darleen] Druyun and [Randy 'Duke'] Cunningham debacles, and a steady stream of bad news from Iraq and New Orleans, another high profile scandal further damages the perception of the procurement community and process," said Steven Schooner, a George Washington University professor specializing in procurement law.

Schooner said this is a shame, especially given that though Safavian served as head of the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy until last September, the allegations against him do not relate to his work there.